How has the prosecution opposed a motion to suppress evidence pursuant to section 1538.5?

McNeill filed a motion to suppress evidence pursuant to section 1538.5 which sought to exclude "all observations, physical evidence, and statements" obtained as a result of unlawful searches or seizures. Included within his moving papers was a demand for "the source of probable cause in this case," followed by citations to Harvey, supra, 156 Cal.App.3d at p. 522 and Remers v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 659, 667 (Remers). The prosecution interpreted this as a "Harvey/Madden objection," referring to the line of cases which hold that when a police officer makes an arrest based on information received through "official channels," the government must show the officer who originally furnished the information had probable cause to believe the suspect had committed a felony (Madden, supra, 2 Cal.3d at p. 1021). In its written opposition, the prosecution argued that the Harvey/Madden rule did not apply because the underlying arrest was based on personal observations of the investigating deputies, and not upon probable cause supplied by a third party source.

Page 6